Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will teach you dependent co-arising & dependently co-arisen phenomena. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks replied. The Blessed One said:

"Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth...

"From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming...

"From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance...

"From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving...

"From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling...

"From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact...

"From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media...

"From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form...

"From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness...

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What's there in this way is a reality, not an unreality, not other than what it seems, conditioned by this/that. This is called dependent co-arising.

"Ignorance is a dependently co-arisen phenomenon: inconstant, compounded, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to passing away, subject to fading, subject to cessation. These are called dependently co-arisen phenomena.

"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."

"I will teach you dependent arising, bhikkhus, and phenomena (dhamma) that are dependently arisen...

"Now what, bhikkhus, is Dependent Arising?

"With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be. Whether Tathaagatas[38] appear or do not appear, this nature of things continues, this relatedness of phenomena, this regularity of phenomena, this law of conditionality. A Tathaagata fully awakens and penetrates to it. Having fully awakened and penetrated to it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyzes it, and explains it. 'See' he says, 'with birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be. With becoming as condition, birth comes to be.' Whether Tathaagatas appear or do not appear...

"So, bhikkhus, that which herein is a reality and not an unreality and not otherwise, this law of conditionality — this, bhikkhus, is called Dependent Arising.

"Now what, bhikkhus, are dependently arisen phenomena?

"Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; of a nature to decay, to pass away, to be destroyed and to cease.

"Birth... becoming... grasping... ignorance, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; of a nature to decay, to pass away, to be destroyed and to cease. These, bhikkhus, are called dependently arisen phenomena.

"When a noble disciple has well seen this dependent arising and those dependently arisen phenomena according to actuality with perfect wisdom, it does not occur to him that he should run back to the past, saying 'Did I exist in the past?' 'Did I not exist in the past?' 'What was I in the past?' 'What was I like in the past?' 'Having been what, what did I become in the past?'

"Nor that he should run ahead to the future, saying, 'Shall I exist in the future?' 'Shall I not exist in the future,' 'What shall I be in the future?' 'What shall I be like in the future?' 'Being what, what shall I become in the future?'

"Nor that he should now in the present have doubts within himself, saying, 'Am I?' 'Am I not?' 'What am I?' 'What am I like?' 'This being [that is, myself], where did it come from, where will it go to?'

"What is the reason? It is because the noble disciple has well seen this dependent arising and these dependently arisen phenomena according to actuality with perfect wisdom.

Notes

[38] "Tathaagata" is a title of the Buddha. It means, "One who has thus (tathaa) come (aagata) or gone (gata)" to Enlightenment, as former Buddhas have done, or, "One who has arrived at (aagata) the Truth (tatha)." In the Paali scriptures the word is mostly used by the Buddha when referring to himself.

This maybe of some use in reflection, from the Abhidhamma, and used in funeral chanting.

Just some background of what a mātikā is - basically a table of contents, which in some ways can be used as a means of reflection once the explanation of each is known/studied/reflected upon, like saying to oneself dukkha, anatta, and/or anicca as a reminder. the Patimokkha recitation is also a mātikā of the suttavibangha and could be where the abhidhamma use of them comes from.

Paṭṭhāna-mātikā-pāṭho (Paṭṭhāna 1 Abhidhamma) wrote:Hetu-paccayo, - Causes for the conditioned.Ārammaṇa-paccayo, - Causes for sense objects.adhipati-paccayo, - Causes that are predominant.anantara-paccayo, - Causes that adjoin the conditioned.samanantara-paccayo, - Immediate causes.saha-jāta-paccayo, - Causes that are born together with the conditioned.añña-m-añña-paccayo, - Mutually conditioning causes and effects.nissaya-paccayo, - Causes that are dependent upon each other.Upanissaya-paccayo, - Causes & effects that are associated closely.pure-jāta-paccayo, - Causes that are born before the conditioned.pacchā-jāta-paccayo, - Causes that are born after the conditioned.Āsevana-paccayo, - Causes that are in pursuit of the conditioned.kamma-paccayo, - Causes of actions.vipāka-paccayo, - Cause of the fruit of actions.āhāra-paccayo, - Causes that sustain the conditioned.indriya-paccayo, - Causes that are controlling principles of the conditioned.jhāna-paccayo, - Causes for the concentration of mind.magga-paccayo, - Causes for the path.sampayutta-paccayo, - Causes that are associated with the conditioned.vippayutta- paccayo, - Causes that are not associated with the conditioned.atthi-paccayo, - Causes that exist simultaneously with the conditioned.n’atthi-paccayo, - Causes that do not exist simultaneously as the conditioned.vigata-paccayo, - Causes that cease the conditioned.Avigata-paccayo. - Causes that do not cease the conditioned.

particularly with the DO sequence this particular mātikā could be used to explore the different layers of DO for a fuller understanding/seeing where & what the problem is in a situation/general theme of problems one repetitively faces.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Being inwardly perplexed about the present, and sometimes inclined to run after past and future, I can deduce from this sutta that I haven't completely understood the sequence which it contains. I wonder who has understood it, and how I would know that they have? It would presumably be possible to settle the perplexity etc. without understanding this sequence as it appears. It would be even more possible to present a coherent "reading" of it and claim that one had set aside the perplexity, without having done so.

The sequence is (I assume for most of us) at odds with the way we see the world. I can't make sense of the listed phenomena, because I don't know whether they are to be understood in the abstract; in general terms; specific to human beings; or specific to me. So to see (say) birth clearly, and to see that it is dependent upon becoming as a requisite condition, and that it is inconstant, compounded, etc., I would need to know whether we are talking about birth as an abstract concept; all "births" of all possible phenomena; some "births" of some significant phenomena; human biological birth; or my own biological birth; etc. It is as if we have lost the context for this, and have to reconstruct it. Hence the many disagreements which this and similar suttas and expositions attract.

This seems all the more important, as I take the bit about "whether or not is the arising of a Tathagata..." to mean that irrespective of teachings and understandings, here is an account of the way things are.

The dependence (etc...) of ignorance is particularly interesting. What it depends upon is not given here, yet undermining ignorance is presumably the key to the whole sequence. There are of course other suttas which deal with this, and my approach is to try my best to do as they prescribe, in the hope that one day I will have more insight into this Paccaya Sutta. I will keep working at it, however, to see if progress is being made.

Hi Sam Vega,I have responded roughly in order of appearance in your post, so sorry if this post seams confused or jumpy.You wouldn't necessarily know if someone has or hasn't understood DO, but you can use others understanding to test your own by how you look at life through the DO sequence. although sense restraint is one method of keeping to the present moment.what do you mean by

Sam Vega wrote:It would be even more possible to present a coherent "reading" of it and claim that one had set aside the perplexity, without having done so.

The sequence is not seen, and we proliferate as to the nature of the world, adding what is not there, or simply not seeing what is, so why don't you try to see the listed phenomena from each of the abstract; in general terms; specific to human beings; or specific to me, and see what you find?

There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model. Birth is physical birth, becoming for me is the moment to moment aspect and the part which shapes the next life (rebirth), although the moment to moment interpretation can be seen as valid and at play, we all have different persona's and birth could be interpreted as the birth of a different aspect of ones persona, and becoming the moods and fluctuations within these persona's. I should add this isn't a Multiple personality disorder, but different aspect of ones personality which may be emphasized at different points.The Buddha only pointed out the way things are and the path to transcend Dukkha, so irrespective of whether the Tathagata is pressent or not, the truth/reality is the way it is, this is why the Dhamma is timeless, or not subject to time and place.

The list is not always the same in every occurrence within the texts, sometimes more or less and the order is sometimes different also, however, the sequence also contains many of the parts in different places, showing that it feeds itself so the omited or included parts may not matter as they are playing either a different role in the sequence in the context of the text, or are already there in a different guise.

Ignorance is the requisite condition, and all the other links of the chain (to my understanding) feed into this, so ignorance is its own requisite condition, and when broken the chain breaks apart, so to speak, however there are weak links, but I can not remember exactly which ones are the weak links specifically.The Dependent Cestation sequence is also found within the texts and is the reverse order and linked to the Third Noble Truth, and the DO sequence is Linked to the Second Noble Truth.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Sam Vega wrote:I would need to know whether we are talking about birth as an abstract concept; all "births" of all possible phenomena; some "births" of some significant phenomena; human biological birth; or my own biological birth; etc. ... This seems all the more important, as I take the bit about "whether or not is the arising of a Tathagata..." to mean that irrespective of teachings and understandings, here is an account of the way things are.

The problem is dukkha, a personal problem (as the person is the bearer of the burden of pancupadanakkhandha); paticcasamuppada is an example of idapaccayata at work, the particular example being how suffering arises for any putthujjana, whether or not a Tathagata has arisen (which is obvious, actually, else how could a Bodhisatta see it for themselves?).

That one sees clearly that there is still birth for me (e.g. "my birth", "when I was born", etc.) is the point, as that means there is still death for me. We are not called on to attempt to observe either of these clairvoyantly in order to see paticcasamuppada; rather, we must simply see that we think of ourselves as having been born, and as having an as-yet-unknown death-day. This happens every time we bhava, as it were, and this happens every time we cling.

Sam Vega wrote:The dependence (etc...) of ignorance is particularly interesting. What it depends upon is not given here, yet undermining ignorance is presumably the key to the whole sequence.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Cittasanto wrote:There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model.

This is inaccurate. The Suttas never suggest it is something which occurs over three lifetimes.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

We're seeing in these suttas that there are many variations on DO, so it's a rather non-linear web of dependencies, not just linear or circular.

I have not yet seen a sutta which presents DO as a circle - are there any? I am also tempted to ask why, if the reality is a non-linear web, we are not told as much. I know some interpretations require it to be non-linear, but the suttas normally give a line. The variations are in what features in the line; the ordering, etc.

We can't just think of some "primordial ignorance" that originates the rest. If ignorance wasn't simply arising due to conditions, the process not be ended.

Yes, that is my understanding. As I said in my original post, there are suttas which deal with the attenuation of ignorance, and they also make much of its conditioned nature.

Cittasanto wrote:There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model.

This is inaccurate. The Suttas never suggest it is something which occurs over three lifetimes.

Then explain Birth!

Three lifetime model is the rebirth model, not precisely three lifetimes. Two lifetime model would be this life then heaven or hell (christian model to name one)one lifetime is an anhialationist view.

Last edited by Cittasanto on Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Hi Sam Vega,I have responded roughly in order of appearance in your post, so sorry if this post seams confused or jumpy.

No, it is fine, thanks.

what do you mean by Sam Vega wrote:It would be even more possible to present a coherent "reading" of it and claim that one had set aside the perplexity, without having done so.

I mean that claims to have understood DO cannot be evaluated on the basis of whether or not the claimant has produced a coherent reading of DO. They might have just understood it intellectually, even if they claimed to have deeper understanding. I see from your next sentence that you are not in that category!

The sequence is not seen, and we proliferate as to the nature of the world, adding what is not there, or simply not seeing what is, so why don't you try to see the listed phenomena from each of the abstract; in general terms; specific to human beings; or specific to me, and see what you find?

Yes, I have; I am by nature a bit of a pragmatist, but I am always looking for short-cuts!

There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model. Birth is physical birth, becoming for me is the moment to moment aspect and the part which shapes the next life (rebirth), although the moment to moment interpretation can be seen as valid and at play, we all have different persona's and birth could be interpreted as the birth of a different aspect of ones persona, and becoming the moods and fluctuations within these persona's. I should add this isn't a Multiple personality disorder, but different aspect of ones personality which may be emphasized at different points.

Yes, the difficulty is that this relies (as do all interpretations) on the provision of the "lost" context. As you can see from a later post on this thread, it is not uncontentious!

The Buddha only pointed out the way things are and the path to transcend Dukkha, so irrespective of whether the Tathagata is pressent or not, the truth/reality is the way it is, this is why the Dhamma is timeless, or not subject to time and place.

Yes, I can understand that bit.

The list is not always the same in every occurrence within the texts, sometimes more or less and the order is sometimes different also, however, the sequence also contains many of the parts in different places, showing that it feeds itself so the omited or included parts may not matter as they are playing either a different role in the sequence in the context of the text, or are already there in a different guise.

The idea that the DO process "feeds itself" is an inference drawn from the fact of the different orderings of the phenomena within the sequence. I would be more trusting of this inference were it to be supported by some text.

Ignorance is the requisite condition, and all the other links of the chain (to my understanding) feed into this

Again, I can see how this might be the case. I think for me the attenuation or erosion of the ignorance is the key!

There are two interpretations found within the canon, the Sutta of the three lifetime model, and the Abhidhamma version of moment to moment model. Birth is physical birth, becoming for me is the moment to moment aspect and the part which shapes the next life (rebirth), although the moment to moment interpretation can be seen as valid and at play, we all have different persona's and birth could be interpreted as the birth of a different aspect of ones persona, and becoming the moods and fluctuations within these persona's. I should add this isn't a Multiple personality disorder, but different aspect of ones personality which may be emphasized at different points.

Yes, the difficulty is that this relies (as do all interpretations) on the provision of the "lost" context. As you can see from a later post on this thread, it is not uncontentious!

Yes I did fail to mention part of this was my own personal interpretation although I feel it is easy to see it.but the fact is that these interpretations didn't spring up from nowhere, and both have support within the texts. the commentaries clarify the past present and future life areas of the sequence but I feel this is too simple an explanation for it to cover the range DO has within the two interpretation I mention.

The list is not always the same in every occurrence within the texts, sometimes more or less and the order is sometimes different also, however, the sequence also contains many of the parts in different places, showing that it feeds itself so the omited or included parts may not matter as they are playing either a different role in the sequence in the context of the text, or are already there in a different guise.

The idea that the DO process "feeds itself" is an inference drawn from the fact of the different orderings of the phenomena within the sequence. I would be more trusting of this inference were it to be supported by some text.

read the linked text, especially feeling and name and form. there are repeated areas and there is no reason to believe these refer to something else without it being specified or another name being provided, so it is an inference from the sequence itself, more than from different orderings.

A good book to read is the shape of suffering by Thanissaro Bhikkhu which deals with DO in detail, although there are others, such as P.A. Payuttos Book on DO, which has a very interesting appendix on possible implications of nirodha in the cessation sequence.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

A very interesting discourse. I prefer the John D. Ireland translation.

The first half is explaining Dependent Arising as a law, or general principle, which is universally true at all times and places.

The interpretation changes with the time-scale adopted in the following way:

1. The three lifetimes model - here nama-rupa can be ones actual physical body and ones actual mind, which have arisen due to ignorance and craving in ones previous life.

2. The "limited to this life" model - here nothing in the series can be an actual physical thing because ignorance is mental and only other mental things can arise from it.

The second half is showing how the general principle is applied when examining one's own mind. All these things are dependently arisen and therefore impermanent, which means - capable of vanishing completely and permanently, when ignorance ceases.

Dependent Origination shows how the illusion of an existing self has come to be. So those who understand it no longer engage in speculation about the self. They just desire to free themselves from this illusion.

We're seeing in these suttas that there are many variations on DO, so it's a rather non-linear web of dependencies, not just linear or circular.

I have not yet seen a sutta which presents DO as a circle - are there any? I am also tempted to ask why, if the reality is a non-linear web, we are not told as much. I know some interpretations require it to be non-linear, but the suttas normally give a line. The variations are in what features in the line; the ordering, etc.

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"... "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?

From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Name-&-form doesn't exist when consciousness doesn't exist. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Consciousness doesn't exist when what doesn't exist? From the cessation of what comes the cessation of consciousness?' From my appropriate attention there came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Consciousness doesn't exist when name-&-form doesn't exist. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness.'

And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death [comes to be]’: whether there is an arising of Tathāgatas or no arising of Tathāgatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality.

Ṭhitā va sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.

Spk: That element (sā dhātu), the intrinsic nature of the conditions (paccayasabhāva), still persists; never is it the case that birth is not a condition for aging-and-death. By the next two terms too he indicates just the condition. For the dependently arisen phenomena stand because of the condition (paccayena hi paccayuppannā dhammā tiṭṭhanti); therefore the condition itself is called the stableness of the Dhamma (dhammaṭṭhitatā). The condition fixes (or determines) the dependent phenomena (paccayo dhamme niyameti); thus it is called the fixed course of the Dhamma (dhammaniyāmatā). Specific conditionality (idappaccayatā) is the set of specific conditions for aging-and-death, etc.

Spk-pṭ: Whether it is unpenetrated before and after the arising of Tathāgatas, or penetrated when they have arisen, that element still persists; it is not created by the Tathāgatas, but aging-and-death always occurs through birth as its condition. A Tathāgata simply discovers and proclaims this, but he does not invent it.

BB: At AN I 286,8-24 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlexactly the same statement is made about the three characteristics: “All formations are impermanent /suffering” and “All phenomena are nonself.” The two expressions, dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā, must thus have a meaning that is common to both dependent origination and the three characteristics, and it therefore seems unfitting to explain them here, as Spk does, in a way that is specifically tied to conditionality. Moreover, it is more likely that here dhamma means the principle or law-fulness that holds sway over phenomena, not the phenomena subject to that principle.

A Tathāgata awakens to this and breaks through to it.

BB: Abhisambujjhati abhisameti. The former verb, which is reserved for the Buddha’s enlightenment, is transitive. I thus render it “awakens to (with the object),” though otherwise I generally translate words derived from the verb bujjhati as expressing the sense of “enlightenment.”

BB: The Sinhala-script edition contains a footnote which explains that the statement below, “Thus, bhikkhus, the actuality in this ...” should be inserted at the end of each section on the conditioning relationships; and each following section should begin with the statement, “whether there is an arising of Tathāgatas....”

it reminds me of a passage (one I did not find on A2I) describing who is suitable to teach the Dhamma.

it is not necessarily true that all teachers have gone all the way to enlightenment or establishing the particular quality fully, as then disciples such as Ananda would not of been seen teaching before hand in the texts, but they have established it to some degree and the talk on the subject in discussion (ten subjects for proper conversation) aids further development of the quality, or knowledge of the truth such as with DO.

just a random though not entirely related to DO itself but thought it would be useful to reflect on regarding on-line discussions in general and the textual study more specifically.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

mikenz66 wrote:We're seeing in these suttas that there are many variations on DO, so it's a rather non-linear web of dependencies, not just linear or circular.

I think DO can be looked at in different ways, but I'm not clear why you're saying DO is non-linear? It seems to me that the order in which the nidanas appear is very significant to understanding the process.

mikenz66 wrote:We're seeing in these suttas that there are many variations on DO, so it's a rather non-linear web of dependencies, not just linear or circular.

I think DO can be looked at in different ways, but I'm not clear why you're saying DO is non-linear? It seems to me that the order in which the nidanas appear is very significant to understanding the process.

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.